What ELT Pub is
ELT Pub is an independent, scholar-led publication and toolmaker. It exists because the arrival of generative AI has changed what educators and researchers are asked to do, faster than the guidance available to them has kept up. Between vendor marketing on one side and blanket prohibition on the other, there is a large middle ground where careful, evidence-aware practice has to be worked out. That middle ground is what this site is for.
The work takes two forms. The first is writing: explainers, critical commentary, and practical guidance on research metrics, publishing integrity, and the use of generative AI in learning, teaching, and inquiry. The second is tools: small, focused utilities that do one useful thing well and are honest about what they cannot tell you.
Who runs it
ELT Pub was founded by Dr. Ngo Cong-Lem, who designs, writes, builds, and solely funds it. His research spans applied linguistics, sociocultural theory, teacher development, and the use of artificial intelligence in education, with published work on Vygotskian theory, teacher agency, emotion and cognition, and evidence synthesis. That background shapes what appears here: a bias toward primary sources, explicit method, and stated limitations.
Every article on this site is written and signed by a named human author. Where generative AI assists production — drafting scaffolds, copy-editing, code — the editorial judgement, the claims, the sourcing, and the responsibility remain human. This is set out in full in the editorial policy.
Independence
ELT Pub is not sponsored by any university, publisher, indexing service, or software vendor. Dr. Ngo Cong-Lem's university affiliations are stated for biographical context and to let readers judge his expertise; they do not imply institutional sponsorship, review, or endorsement, and nothing published here should be read as a statement by those institutions.
The site is funded by its founder. Hosting costs may be partly offset by advertising, which is kept clearly separated from editorial content and never influences what is written or how a tool reports its results. The site has no commercial relationship with Scopus, SCImago, Clarivate, Elsevier, or Google, and is not affiliated with or endorsed by any of them.
What the tools are and are not
The tools published here are screening and reflection aids. Journal Intelligence assembles publishing signals into a risk profile; it does not certify a journal as legitimate or condemn it as predatory. Scholar Metrics surfaces quartiles and indexing that a search result omits; it does not tell you whether a paper is any good. Every tool states its data sources, its update cadence, and the specific things it cannot see.
Automation assists. Researchers decide.
This is not a disclaimer bolted on afterwards. It is a design constraint. A tool that produces a confident verdict from partial evidence would be more satisfying to use and considerably more harmful, particularly for the early-career researchers who most need help reading these signals and are least placed to overrule a confident-looking machine.
Editorial standards
Four commitments govern what appears here, and they are stated on the home page because they should be easy to hold us to:
- Rigour before speed. Sources are checked, claims are examined, methods and limitations stay visible.
- People before systems. Teacher knowledge, learner needs, and lived experience are not reducible to model outputs.
- Assistance without dependence. Tools should extend capability, not outsource thinking.
- Transparency by design. The roles of AI, evidence, and editorial judgement are made visible wherever they shape what we publish.
Corrections are made openly. If an article is materially wrong, it is corrected with a dated note explaining what changed rather than quietly edited. If you find an error, please tell us.
Who this is for
Graduate students choosing where to submit. Early-career researchers assembling a promotion file and trying to work out which indexing actually counts. Supervisors who need to explain the difference between ESCI and SSCI for the tenth time. Teachers redesigning assessment now that detection has stopped working. Anyone who wants to use these technologies well and is unwilling to pretend the problems are solved.
Get in touch
Questions, corrections, and proposals for collaboration are welcome at ngoconglem@gmail.com, or through the contact page.